19 January, 2007

D'Souza makes his points carefully, and some of them are worth considering: What happens when, as in the case of Carter withdrawing his support for the Shah of Iran, a vacuum is left? Well, we know what happens -- the Iranian Revolution. That D'Souza fails to mention that the United States fomented the Revolution while propping up the Shah in the first place, and that Iran's relationship with the Soviet Union subsequent to 1978 and 1979 was likely closer than it would have been in the 1950s under the secular, democratically elected government the Shah userped. That the relationship with Iran probably enabled the Soviets to stay afloat during the escalate and prolong strategy of the 1980 Cold War (a $3 Trillion adventure for America) is worthy of note.

D'Souza also notes that American liberal intervention in places like South America, in the form of contraceptive assistance in countries unfriendly to safe sex due to religious conservatism, is resented. D'Souza is right, of course. The Catholic Church wants to be the only game in town, and so I don't feel uneasy comparing them to the Taliban, a regime so covetous they blew up 3000-year old artifacts. D'Souza doesn't buy the liberal zeitgeist that people, teenagers, children will engage in sexual activity no matter what the church says, and often in spite of anything the church tells them. But Catholicism understands that it's a numbers game, and doesn't care that the liberal view on sex happens to have the benefit of being true. The numbers game is turned on its head in the age of AIDS, where the irresponsible policies of the Vatican expose nearly a billion parishoners to STDs, some fatal.

While all this and more is true, to an extent, D'Souza chooses to ignore those facts that do not mesh nicely with his theories. But one assertion that he does make, that like everything else he says has a whiff of truth, is in fact false: that our policies in regarding Israel and Palestine are not a rallying point of radical Islam. This argument is part and parcel of the core of Neo-conservatism -- like a burning victim contorting into a fetal position, neocons will twist around like pretzels to protect Israel.

I'm quoting the letter, because I pretty much agree with everything it says:

"Well, it's very interesting. In the aftermath of 9-11, D'Souza thinks that it was entirely appropriate to shoot first and ask questions later, but now that five years have elapsed, he says it is time to ask WHY we were attacked. Without puffing myself up too much, because millions of sane and thoughtful Americans did the same thing, I just want to say that I asked myself that question on the very day of the attack. It seemed like a good idea to try to answer it before sending in the Marines. And it was not too difficult to get the answer, because millions of Arabs and Muslims were celebrating the attack and were eager to tell anyone who would listen why they were dancing in the streets. And strangely, they said nothing about Hollywood or feminism or abortion or gay marriage, but they were very clear about their hatred of our support for the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Later, Osama bin Laden explained that the inspiration for the attack came to him when he saw buildings in Lebanon being destroyed by Israeli fighter planes in 1983 and he thought how perfect the retribution would be if American buildings were similarly destroyed from the air."